Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Specialty Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates specialty-court fees and approves $2.50 summons fee for district courts
Summary
Judges and sponsors urged district courts be permitted to run specialty court programs and assess program fees (with indigency waivers); committee pulled one specialty-court bill for language review and approved a separate bill allowing a $2.50 summons fee in district court.
Get email alerts on the Specialty Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representatives of the district judges and the Arkansas District Judges Council explained two bills to the Senate Judiciary Committee that would clarify district courts' authority to operate specialty court programs and to allow district courts to charge a $2.50 summons fee analogous to circuit courts.
Judge Keith Cavendish testified specialty courts (DWI/sobriety, drug, mental-health, domestic-violence courts) are treatment-focused programs with multidisciplinary teams and that fees can be assessed for program costs such as monitoring, drug tests and treatment, but the bills permit waivers for indigent participants. He listed counties with existing specialty programs and said the state specialty-court advisory committee provides oversight.
Senator Flowers pressed for clarity on when grants or donated funds would be used versus charging defendants, how fees were set, and whether courts would be required to determine indigency in a uniform way. Judge Cavendish and the sponsor said the programs are voluntary, fees could be waived on a finding of indigency, and some funding does come from small specialty-court grants (judge estimated roughly $300,000 statewide across courts).
Representative Ballinger presented a related measure to allow district courts to collect a $2.50 summons fee (parity with circuit courts) to handle increased filings after the civil-jurisdiction increase to $25,000; committee heard no opposition and passed that bill by voice vote.
The specialty-court authority bill was pulled by the sponsor to refine language addressing the indigency inquiry and oversight concerns and may return with amendments; the summons-fee bill was advanced.
